Killingworth, Connecticut 06419
The Democratic Eye 2004
|
December 21, 2004 This is the last Democratic Eye column for 2004. Therefore, we can take literary license and reflect back upon 2004, while thinking forward to 2005. As Democrats, we are proud of our efforts in 04 to make Killingworth a better place in which to live. We have been out front in all efforts to provide playing fields for our youth, to look at the suitability of the Pharmedica building for town use, to purchase the Venuti property, to create a viable Town Center plan, to move the compactor site, and to build a new middle school. The election results brought a President back to office that we did not support. However, we wish him well over the next four years. His success is crucial to the well being of our families and our loved ones. Chris Dodd was reelected, along with Brian O'Connor. We also wish them well as the New Year begins. Ed Meyer is a newcomer to the political scene. His stunning victory is good news for those who value direct and honest government. The Democratic Town Committee continues to be composed of various and dynamic citizens who care deeply about our Town. Our strength is derived, in part, from our passion, our love for the town and the diversity that defines us. We have expanded our membership, changed Committee Chairs and continued a process of creating an agenda of issues and solutions to present to the citizens of Killingworth. Elections for Town government will be held in November 2005. Because of the gravity of the issues facing us and the urgent need for timely solutions, these elections will be crucial to our town's future. Education, playing fields, recreation, open space, development, affordable housing, property taxes, seniors, the rural nature of the town and related environmental concerns are just some of the topics upon which the Democratic Town Committee is focusing. These issues require serious thought, openness, and a commitment to long-term town planning. Our committee discussions and our proposals to the residents of the town encompass that kind of broad view. The Killingworth Democratic Town Committee does not function in a vacuum. We are one group of voters in a large town. We acknowledge that citizens who register unaffiliated make up the largest block of the voters in our municipality. We ask you to get to know who we are and what we represent. We ask Republicans in town, who are searching and yearning for an approach to good government that is inclusive and respectful to all parties, to get to know us. We will never be all things to all people. However, we represent a genuine opportunity for citizen involvement. Working and joining with us will allow your opinions to be heard and respected. It will afford you an opportunity to be part of a process of making Killingworth better than it is right now. We meet on the first Sunday of the month at 7PM in the Library meeting room. Our hand is extended to you to attend our meetings. On behalf of the Killingworth Democratic Town Committee, I wish all citizens peace for the holidays and a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year. December 14, 2004 This column will not address the reasons WHY the full blown Recreation Complex was soundly defeated in the recent town referendum. Numerous columns and letters have already done that. Rather, let us address the absolute and immediate need to get some playing fields for our kids. That Killingworth has not added one athletic field for the past 25 years is a disgrace. The three fields that are currently available are over used with bare spots almost equaling the areas that support grass. Our fields cannot be used for sports new to our town like lacrosse and football. Baseball teams are sent out of town to play games. It is an embarrassment to host a home game against any other town because of the frequent comments on the deplorable conditions of the few fields we do have at Sheldon Park. Even those people who voted NO, agree we are in desperate need of more playing fields. The question is, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? First, we should not "throw the baby out with the bath water". Killingworth owns the BOSCO PROPERTY and we should closely examine the ease and speed with which a couple of playing fields could be developed on the flat and already cleared portions of Bosco (located behind the Farmhouse). No bells, no whistles, no frills, just a couple of decent playing fields. The price would be a fraction of the $5 million plus expense the full blown Recreation Complex would have cost. No major excavation, no blasting, and no deforesting would be required. Communication with the Inland Wetland and Water Courses Commission (IWWC) would take place up front and the feasibility of the number of fields would be determined prior to any plans being drawn up. We owe it to the kids to scrutinize this option. Secondly, we need to examine what OTHER PARCELS of land in town might be purchased that can support fields. One or two fields scattered in various locations would not offer the same sense of community that a Recreation Complex would, but this could be accomplished one step at a time, rather than trying to force the recreation complex "elephant" down taxpayers throats. The Killingworth Land Conservation Trust (KLCT) people are very familiar with what land might be available and should become key players in this effort. At the November 22 Board of Selectmen meeting, the idea of establishing a new ad hoc committee, like the successful Pharmedica Committee, seemed to be embraced. The purpose of this new group was not defined and judgment is reserved until it is. One important difference to be considered , however, is the fact that there weren't other Commissions or Boards already in place to study the feasibility of Pharmedica becoming our new Town Hall. There are two groups in existence who have researched our town recreation needs. The Land Use Committee (LUC) was the lead agency for the development of the Recreation Complex. However, their previous charge from the Board of Selectmen did NOT include looking at any sites other than Bosco. The Park and Recreation Commission, although relegated to a secondary role, also participated in the development of recreation facilities. It is my personal belief that at least several members from these two groups become a part of any new group that is formed. Better yet, I believe the BOS should increase the size of the existing LUC to 14 (which it can do at any time because it is a "committee" and not a Town Charter mandated "Board" or "Commission"). Add members from the KLCT, Park and Rec, key members from the Pharmedica Committee and maybe a watchdog or two. This would give balance, land expertise, and credibility to their recommendations. Thirdly, contrary to what we had been told, we are now finding out that negotiations over the expansive VENUTI PROPERTY are not dead. This saga is a whole column unto itself. But let it suffice to say that if genuine and sincere negotiation is possible between our current Board of Selectmen and Michael Venuti, then it needs to occur A.S.A.P. So, where DO we go from here? The KDTC feels the alternatives need to be expeditiously examined and some action taken soon. Process, transparency, and communication will matter. Remember, you can't swallow an elephant in one gulp, but you can manage one, a piece at a time. December 7, 2004 "Getting married was the start," Pam Ahearn explains as she begins the tale of her odyssey from London hairdresser to Killingworth's First Selectwoman, a post she held from 1985 through '89. During the Second World War, back in London after a short time as an evacuee, and not discouraged by nightly air raids, Pam attended USO dances at the former Covent Garden Opera House. It was at one such dance that she met her husband, Jack, an Airman stationed at Bury St. Edmond's. Plans to marry in the USA were delayed by a long visa wait and the difficulty of scheduling a flight on the few available prop planes traversing the Atlantic. But the Londoner arrived in Killingworth on March 30th of 1946, and the newly married Ahearns began their life together. At first, Pam didn't think much of Killingworth, missing the bustle and excitement of London. Killingworth's population of 500 made it a small town indeed. "It was not my cup of tea, but it grew on me," she reminisced. Not licensed to work as a hairdresser in the states, Pam waitressed at the Country Squire before starting her family. Her husband, working as a machinist at Pratt and Whitney in North Haven, would get involved in town politics in the late fifties. When Jack Ahearn became First Selectman in the early sixties, he continued his machinist job. During his four terms in office, "I held down the fort at my house during the day," Pam explains. "There was no Town Hall then. I acted as secretary and whatever else was needed. I did all the bookkeeping for the town in a time before computers. Even when vacationing, I had to come home to do the payroll. And I was paid $10 a week for my efforts." E. Stewart Campbell followed Jack Ahearn as First Selectman and asked Pam to be his secretary in the newly acquired Town Hall. Campbell had a full time job at Reader's Digest so Pam continued to have daily responsibilities. Ever more knowledgeable about the whats, wheres, and hows of Killingworth's operations and needs, Pam served under several more First Selectmen. With the encouragement of her four children and feeling that she had a learned a great deal over her years as Administrative Assistant, she decided to run for the position herself. Consequently, she served two terms as First Selectwoman and was on the Board for another two years. It always seemed perfectly logical to this transported Londoner that she be a Democrat. The principles of the Democratic Party "felt similar to the Labor Party's in England. They stood for the working people," and so she could readily follow in her husband's footsteps. When Pam took over the First Selectman's job, it was still considered a part time position. Yet it included being head of Social Services, Chief of Police, head of the CEDA job training program, and Superintendent of Highways. To insure that the town in general and the roads in particular were in good shape, Pam's philosophy was "You can't just sit in the office. You have to get out and look around." During her tenure, the Land Use Committee was formed with an eye toward planning for a new Town Hall. Working with the State of Connecticut, plans were designed for a modest Green with the Town Hall, the Library and a Post Office as central components. Moving the compactor was part of the plan then as now. "We needed funding from the state and my time in office ran out in the process of seeking it." Pam feels that this original plan would have been cost effective, gotten us a small green and thus a town center. Under her supervision, the town joined CIRMA to negotiate better insurance rates. Negotiations with the Water Company produced a gravel road along the reservoir at no cost to the town, houses were numbered and the Town Charter revised. Thus, this London war bride not only made Killingworth her home, she became its first, and to date, only woman First Selectperson. In a way, Pam Ahearn's tenure represented a trip back to the town's English roots even as she prepared it for its future. A longtime member of the Killingworth Democratic Town Committee, Pam now serves on the Board of Tax Review and the Emergency Preparedness Committee. November 30, 2004 Recreation advocates, public officials and even those against the proposed recreational development in Killingworth all openly decry our lack of athletic fields. The Killingworth Recreation Complex (KRC) was either too expensive, too grandiose, still too close to Jensen's or maybe citizens just felt it was time to send a message to our town officials. Whatever the case, we can all now agree the KRC was not right for the majority of Killingworth voters. The Killingworth Democratic Town Committee (KDTC) was split almost down the middle with whether to support the KRC and ended up with a compromise endorsement contingent on a number of local and state approvals. This was typical of many organizations, boards and commissions this time around. The Park and Recreation Commission had barely a majority in favor. One might think Park and Recreation would be in lock step in promoting a recreational development considering the sad state of the fields in town...but remarkably no. Even the initially united Board of Selectmen had eleventh hour second thoughts as one member called for a delay in the referendum. The issue of trusting public officials to do their "due diligence" to see that all options available are investigated and all costs involved are measured was lost in the just-finished democratic exercise. The issue came down to whether the public trusted the LUC, BOF, BOS, PandZ, IWWC and other boards and commissions to do our work. Financially oriented voters probably thought the price was too high, especially on the heels of the Intermediate School project. Many issue-oriented voters may have been persuaded by arguments put forth by ill-informed KRC opponents. The unresolved questions surrounding the possible purchase of the Venuti property undoubtedly and unfortunately clouded the issue from the beginning. Broken in this town is the trust of the citizenry in their elected officials and volunteer commission members. Much tedious "homework" was done by the LUC and other commissions involved, yet it seemed to have little impact. Clearly the people were not directed towards the facts and unfortunately chose to believe a lot of opinions. Stronger leadership, a more transparent process and better communication is needed all round. It is incumbent upon the local Democratic and Republican Town Committees to recommend and endorse candidates (elected and volunteer) suited to the work of running a town government. Wise choices will have to be made in the months ahead. The fact remains, the public voted down an expensive municipal improvement project. The residents of Jensen's clearly had a legitimate beef against the intrusion of active recreation at their border. The empty nesters of Killingworth probably stayed home. The parents of the youngest children who might most benefit from the KRC did not turn out in numbers. Others professed their vote was against specific elected town officials and had little to do with town needs. The town was divided, the public officials ultimately could not convince every one of the plan's merits, and, the townspeople ultimately declared an end to the KRC. And the children, who must trust us, still need fields. November 23, 2004 Recently, the office complex north of the traffic circle at the intersection of routes 80 and 81, known as the Pharmedica Buildings, was put on the market. Since the town's present offices were planned to serve municipal needs only until 2010 and already suffer configuration problems, this appeared to be a timely and attractive alternative. Last summer, the Town Office Building Study Committee was charged with investigating this opportunity. The committee's report, released last week, concludes that there is "no viable purchase option for any or all" of the property. As a member of that committee, I would like to elaborate on how we arrived at our conclusion. Not because it needs further justification. The report's thirty-odd pages of detailed analysis, footnotes and appendices are available at the Library or from the Town Clerk. They fully explain the conclusions reached. What I think merits examination here is the process we used and how well it worked. Our newly reactivated, bipartisan committee convened in the midst of controversy about the planned Middle School, contention about the proposed recreation complex and the realization that the town center concept is probably far too costly to pursue. All around town we saw the divisiveness that can result when the basis on which decisions have been made is called into question. We resolved to do better. First, we came to the table with open minds, regardless of our individual inclinations. We resolved to be driven by objective information - not by rumor or opinion, however well "informed". Then we identified the work we had been asked to do. We determined that we were not there to merely justify purchase of the property, calculate some costs and create a master plan for a "done deal". We were there to collect evidence about the implications and ramifications of such a purchase if it were made. That led to the creation of small, sharply focused subcommittees that addressed clearly defined information-gathering tasks. Throughout the process we consulted with experts but we never handed over the reins. We learned from them, integrated that knowledge, dug deeper and exchanged points of view. It was harder than it would have been to solicit proposals, apply for town funds, commission studies and hand them over to the Board of Selectmen. But it assured that it was always the best interests of Killingworth - not a consultant's company - that came first. Although our members, (like the town and nation,) remain divided on a number of other issues, we are united in our commitment to help Killingworth make the soundest possible decisions about its future. I trust that I speak for the entire committee when I say that the civility, productivity and efficiency demonstrated by the Town Office Building Committee will inspire each of us to bring more of the same qualities to our other civic responsibilities. The integrity and transparency built into this process is well worth employing again in pursuit of solutions to town needs. November 16, 2004 Listen in on conversations around town these days and one topic that's bound to come up is the proposed Killingworth recreation complex. So, it's not surprising that it was discussed at length at a recent meeting of the Killingworth Democratic Town Committee (KDTC). As a microcosm of the community, the KDTC includes members who have been instrumental in the development of the project from its outset. We have fervent advocates and equally impassioned detractors. Like the town as a whole, we agree that playing fields should be provided but differ about the wisdom of the location, scale and cost of the planned facility. Some of us are focused on accommodating youth sports leagues. Others want to foster a greater sense of community. All would like our town to be able to provide what residents want -- without compromising what they need. Dialogue at our meeting was lively. Sometimes heated. Just like the dialogue at the town meeting the following night. In the end our committee voted, as will the town on November 20th. There is an important difference between our vote and the town's referendum: We were able to frame our own question, and it goes to the heart of an issue much larger than a few playing fields. It addresses the way Killingworth manages its business and spends its (your) money. The motion was "that the Democratic Town Committee support the referendum question as proffered and trusts that our elected officials and appointed board and commission members: the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, Land Use Committee, Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission, will represent the town's interests by making informed and appropriate decisions." In other words, our support would be contingent on the future actions of those entrusted to carry the project beyond its current "concept" stage. It would depend upon their vigilance, thoroughness and oversight. It would be subject to objective evidence of careful, responsible decision making in the months and years ahead. The motion carried. That means we will be watching closely. Our scrutiny will be objective. Our attention unwavering. Our agenda devoted, as always, to securing a viable future for our town and all of its residents. Please do not leave this work for us to do alone. When you vote on the 20th, consider the question we framed as you decide the one put before you. Walk out of that booth with the conviction that you are an integral part of the process. Other people may be charged with bringing this project along.. Only you can keep it on track. November. 9, 2004 The workings of our democracy were busily on display at KES last Tuesday. An 84.6% voter turnout was ably handled by Election Moderator Pauline Lally, and Registrars Lauren Blaha and Betty Dennis. Dealing with last minute Presidential and Absentee Ballots kept Sue Adinolfo and Linda Dudek busy at Town Hall. At the same time, a team of poll workers checked in voters, set the machines, and counted absentee ballots at the school. For the Democratic Party here in Killingworth, the local results were very positive. We congratulate reelected U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, and State Representative Brian O'Connor. A warm welcome is extended to our newly elected State Senator, Ed Meyer. His personal integrity and commitment to good government are just what Hartford needs. Jim Sullivan's serious attack on Rob Simmons' comfort zone may force Simmons to think more of his home constituency in the months ahead. The Kerry/Edwards team carried Connecticut but unfortunately ended its run with Kerry's statesman- like concession speech last Wednesday. As the national scene settles to a more moderate roar, issues at home call for our attention. The Bosco Recreational Center is on our immediate agenda. As of this writing, a vote on the somewhat revamped project is scheduled for Saturday, November 20 th.. The voting hours were being decided at the Town Meeting last night. The need for additional recreational fields is not a contested issue. The appropriateness of this site, the amount of the bond issue that will be spent on infrastructure because of topography, and whether, upon completion, we will still need more fields, are points to consider. The more people are aware of the facts and have availed themselves of the informational opportunities the town has offered, the better able they will be to vote on the merits of the project. Again, voter turnout is important. The Middle School Project seems to be in limbo because of lawsuits that some say will not be a problem and others feel are of real concern. An injunction may be brought against any activity on the sight until the entire issue is settled. The question of whether or not to buy the Venuti property and at what price is still alive. The issue seems stalled and in need of serious negotiation. Should there be an agreement on price in the future, the matter would be brought before a Town Meeting for discussion and require a referendum for approval and bonding. The Town Office Building Committee's draft report is recommending against the purchase of the Pharmedica property for use as the town offices. Extensive renovation costs and the amount of space itself were among the reasons given for not supporting the purchase. The general consensus is that this committee did a thorough and timely job. With the Pharmedica findings in mind, the Town Center Complex needs to be revisited. The compactor site has to be moved and money for an engineering study ( how and where to move it ) appropriated. A new Town Hall will be needed in the not so distant future. The present Town Hall's life is estimated at ten years. The lease on the temporary part of the building was only for ten years. A new Town Hall is envisioned with a senior and a youth center and, dare we hope, a Post Office. Shepherding these projects along, changing them, making different decisions if need be, and carefully considering their tax consequences, will take strong leadership. Timely and appropriate communication all round is essential.. Active participation at committee and town meetings by the citizens of Killingworth, again, still, whenever the need arises, is an ongoing necessity if we are to move with confidence and solid planning into the future. However one feels about the election results, they are a harbinger of the next four years. Killingworth's future is certainly tied to that of our nation and state. It will also be determined by our own commitment as individuals and groups to this place we call home. November 2, 2004 Election Day 2004 dawns on an America in a far different place than it was just four years ago. There is more on our collective plate today than we could have imagined that seemingly dull Election morning of 2000. National security is now a daily concern. We are engaged in a bloody firestorm in Iraq with no certain end in sight. The budget surplus is gone and our deficits are growing. Good jobs are increasingly being outsourced. Our health care system is near meltdown and energy costs are rising. Whoever we elect today will have to deal effectively with these and other pressing issues if America is to remain a beacon of hope and progress. It is vital for our legitimacy as a democracy that we definitively elect our next president. The choice should not fall by default to the U.S. Supreme Court. Another 51% voter turnout nationwide will not be good enough. It will, in fact, be a disgrace. It is time to tune out simplistic slogans and emotional appeals to one fear or another. Each of us, as individuals, must vote for the team we think can best steer us through the difficult times ahead. That team must be able to pull us together as a nation. That team must emphasize what it is that unites us while calming the waters that divide us. It must work for the common good of the nation as a whole and develop policies that enhance the well being of all citizens. That team must speak the truth to us and we must be up to the task of hearing it. George Orwell warned us that "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." With these weighty issues in mind, The Killingworth Democratic Town Committee urges support of the Kerry/Edwards team, with Chris Dodd for the U.S Senate and Jim Sullivan for the U.S. House of Representatives. Locally, we enthusiastically endorse the reelection of Brian O'Connor to the State Assembly and the election of newcomer Ed Meyer to the State Senate. We believe this team has a realistic view of what America 's urgent needs are and what can be done to meet them. Our continuing responsibility as citizens over the next four years is to be there with our letters, emails, phone calls and political activism to keep the winning team on track. It begins with our voting. Today, we, the people, are the largest lobby in the country. Today, we have the undivided attention of our politicians. Let's show them we too are paying attention. Abe Lincoln, folksy and to the point , said "Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their backs on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will have to live with their blisters."Let's face the fire, avoid the blisters, and make the best, most informed decisions we can. Vote! October 26, 2004 November 2 nd is a week away. Election Day has always been a time when Americans can collectively exercise their right to choose whom will represent them at various levels of government. We have witnessed in the past month the sight of Afghani women standing on lines for hours in order to vote, some for the first time in their lives. Our vote counts. Please vote and honor what citizens in other countries long to do. The Killingworth Democratic Town Committee asks all residents of our town to reflect upon this moment. It is fair to state that the 2004 national election is the most important in decades. The debates showed genuine differences between the candidates. It is clear the voters will make choices between two different visions regarding national security, terrorism, the war in Iraq, the economy, the social fabric, the environment and a host of other issues. The next president may appoint 3 or more judges to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decisions reach into the homes and lives of all Americans. We strongly support a vote for John Kerry/John Edwards. They see an America that defends itself, while at the same time protects the civil liberties of its people. If you want a safe and secure nation, while at the same time ensuring our children's future in the world we all share, please vote the Democratic ticket. We urge a vote for Chris Dodd for United States Senator. His time in the Senate has brought jobs to the state and gives Connecticut a strong advocate and a steady voice in Washington. A vote for Jim Sullivan in the second Congregational District will send to Congress an individual who will bring fresh ideas regarding the issues facing our nation. Ed Meyer is running for the State Senate. His intelligence, experience, and integrity will make a positive difference in the lives of his constituents. Brian O'Connor is running for reelection to the State House. His accomplishments and commitment to the voters are unparalleled. There are different ways of looking at the results of our actions. One way is to look at the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect states that, in theory, the flutter of a butterfly's wings in China could, in part, affect weather patterns in New York City. In a similar way, our vote in this hamlet of beauty can send a powerful message across the land. PLEASE VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2ND. October 19, 2004 Jim Sullivan is running a smart campaign against the incumbent Republican candidate in Connecticut's 2 nd U.S. Congressional District. This observation is reflected in a recent Quinnipiac College poll, which puts Jim within the margin of statistical error to unseat Rob Simmons in this intensely competitive political race. Jim is one of those people whose vibes immediately tell you he is comfortable with who he is and what he stands for. "I'm concerned about the direction in which America is going under Simmons and Bush," he told me the other day in Norwich , where his roots run deep, "and that's why I'm running for this office. I want to provide an alternative to what I believe are the current administration's misguided policies." Sullivan's positions on key domestic issues reflect his people-based focus. Once elected to the Congress, he will create new jobs through targeted economic programs; he will defend Medicare for our Seniors; he will work to enact legislation to address the needs of those increasingly without health insurance. Jim will work to ensure quality education for all our children and to make sure that the needs of our nation's veterans are met. He will protect the environment through balanced public policies. "Simmons is nothing more than George Bush's congressman," Jim said to me. "His policies don't reflect the values and concerns of the people who live and work in this part of Connecticut . I believe we can do better." Jim's attitude with respect to key public policies is reflected in specific proposals. For education, for example, Sullivan will fully fund the "no child left behind program," currently underfunded by $9 billion. He will increase head start funding to level the playing field in America so that all children have access to life's opportunities. And he will streamline the college loan process. Jim has been a financial services advisor and has counseled families on how best to pay for increased college costs. With respect to the increased costs of health care, especially prescription drugs, Jim will support legislation to create safeguards to permit importation of medicines from Canada at a cost savings for those individuals who need them. Sullivan knows that real price competition for health care services is achievable, but will not occur if Simmons continues to represent Connecticut's second congressional district. With respect to international affairs, Jim Sullivan is direct. "Simmons is a cheerleader for Bush's failed foreign policy," he told me. "We need a fresh start on the world stage. If Simmons is re-elected, we will have more of the same. We need to have a broader coalition of countries to support us in Iraq , and we need to really work with our allies to stop the spread of terrorism and the weapons that terrorists threaten us with." Jim Sullivan is honest, hard working, unassuming, familiar with the needs of the people who live and work in Connecticut's second congressional district, and grounded in practicality, not ideology. He understands the nature of politics and the political process, and how to work with others across party lines to get things done. As a former elected official and member of the Norwich City Council he has, as they say, been there and done that. If you believe, as I do, that Connecticut and America must have new leadership in Washington and a new direction in both domestic and foreign policies, please join me in voting for Jim Sullivan for Congress on November 2 nd. Surely, we can do better for our citizens and our country, and Jim Sullivan will see that we do! October 12, 2004 Democrat Ed Meyer threw his hat in the ring for the 12 th Senate District because he wants to offer an alternative to Bill Aniskovich who allied himself so closely with the Rowland administration. Ed's hat came with a lifetime of experience and commitment to public service. He received his party"s enthusiastic endorsement and has been in high gear every since. A resident of Guilford, Ed Meyer serves on the Guilford Economic Development Commission, the Guilford Town Democratic Committee and the New Haven Symphony Board of Directors. A former federal prosecutor with the US Department of Justice, he served as a New York State Legislator and on the Board of Governors of the National Society of State Legislators. He was a twenty three year member of the New York State Board of Regents and is himself a Yale College and Law School graduate. As the father of six and grandfather of eleven, Ed is a strong advocate for public education. He refers to himself as a hawk for high educational standards and student expectations and he views education as the first priority of state government. Abysmal was the word he chose to describe the state's present level of school support to its towns and cities. The Educational Cost Sharing Covenant holds that the state should be paying 50 percent of average public school costs. Killingworth's share is currently about 12 percent. Ed will work to dramatically increase that percentage and for funding of full day kindergarten and pilot pre-k programs. On the subject of land use, Meyer sees timely planning as the antidote to urban sprawl. "Within the 12 th Senate District, Killingworth offers greater open space and rural environment than any of the other towns in this district. That space and environment should be preserved." He sees the need for a clear state land use policy and a pertinent agency to address urban sprawl. Familiar with the "Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives," Meyer believes that the principles of smart growth will serve Killingworth well. The urgent need to restore honesty and integrity to Connecticut's government is an important part of what drew Ed to this senate campaign. His plan for cleaning up state government includes denying public pensions to elected officials found guilty of corruption. He calls for the end to campaign contributions from those doing or seeking business with the state and putting in place a truly independent State Ethics Commission. He will also address the need for legislative oversight of state contractors and the work they do. The reception being given for Meyer in New Haven this evening by Connecticut and New York Attorneys General Richard Blumenthal and Eliot Spitzer offers strong testament to his reputation for fighting corruption. In explaining his working philosophy, Meyer said "The major role of the state legislator has got to be addressing legislative solutions to priority needs and to do that by building a coalition of support. You can't be a lone ranger and be successful. With that in mind, I will form a coalition of elected officials at local, state and federal levels to bring about a real Post Office for Killingworth. As the town grows, the need for a Post Office also grows ." Ed Meyer and his wife, Patty Ann, introduced themselves to the Killingworth Democratic Town Committee several months ago. He was as thoughtful and well informed during our discussions that night as he was for this interview. When you ask Ed a question, you get a direct, substantive answer. He can be reached either through his headquarters at ( 203) 458 2797 or at his website, edmeyer2004.com. Electing Ed Meyer State Senator from the 12 th Senate District is another good reason to go to the polls on November 2 and vote. If you are not yet registered you may do so at Town Hall through October 19. If you move into town between Oct. 20 and Nov 1, reach 18 years of age or become a citizen during that same period you can register by November 1. September 28, 2004 I first met Brian O'Connor in the fall of 2001. He came to a KDTC meeting to introduce himself as the incumbent Representative for the newly created 35 th District. The freshly inked district lines hadn't dried yet and here was Brian reaching out to Killingworth. "So who was this Brian O'Connor?" we wondered. He didn't have a red S painted on his chest! He wasn't stronger than a locomotive. Nor was he faster than a speeding bullet or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. ( Although, finding a tall building in Killingworth might actually be harder than leaping over one.) Meeting him was more like meeting Clark Kent. Brian didn't arrive with an entourage. There was no incessant spokesperson or pushy front man. There was no hoopla and no monologue with "a funny thing happened on the way to the meeting" intro. His message to us that night was clear, straight forward, and caring. He said, "I'm here to listen to your needs, get to know and understand your needs, represent those needs at the State level to the best of my ability, and keep you in the loop all the way." WOW! I've met with Brian many times since, and communicated with him countless times over the phone. I've come to know him as a caring, ethical person with high moral standards. He is a bright young man who thrives on homework, crosses his Ts and dots those Is. There are no false promises, just genuine investigation into the pertinent issues. His responses are honest and direct. His actions are carried out in a timely fashion. Brian has proven that he takes the time to play an active role in helping to resolve Killingworth's many issues. He is on a first name basis with most of those involved in our town government. You would expect him to know many Democrats, but he knows just as many Republicans. Even the unaffiliated folk who act as town watchdogs know him well. Brian is accessible to his constituents and never misses an important town function. In fact, a couple of months ago, I told him I probably wouldn't see him at our local Bake Sale Fundraiser. I had to leave early to attend the First Communion Ceremony in town for my Godson. My jaw dropped when Brian told me he also was going to the ceremony because he had been invited by a prominent Republican activist whose son was making his First Communion. It was my privilege to second the nomination of Brian O'Connor for a third term as our Connecticut State Representative from the 35 th District at our State Convention. All kinds of people know and respect this man at a very personal level. He does not seek to divide or name call. Brian O'Connor is the representative we need now more than ever and he is on the ballot this November. That is one of the many good reasons to go to the polls and vote on November 2! September 21, 2004 The focus of the Killingworth Democratic Eye this week is about change and the future. Cathy Iino has resigned as Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee. The demands of being a mother require her to step down. Cathy is an incredibly intelligent and energetic woman. All who met her were impressed by both her strong passion for justice for all citizens, and her balanced and fair approach to the issues. She worked hard to bring about a town conversation regarding concerns that transcended party and ideology. We wish her and her family well. My name is Michael Sanders and I have been elected the new Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee. I have lived in the town for the past 16 years. I have served on the Water Pollution Control Authority as both a member and Chairperson, was elected as a PandZ alternate and was the Chairperson of the Democratic Town Committee from 1992-1996. While there are many issues before Killingworth that require discussion and action, this week the Eye is about 2017. That is the year kindergarten children who entered Regional School District 17 this September will graduate from High School. Everything we do today will affect the Killingworth of 2017. It's our responsibility to ensure that Killingworth remains a town where these same children will want to and be able to live as adults. Will children have the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in 2017? Will they have access to and apply information with the latest technologies? Will the community be affordable for our seniors? Will children be prepared for the challenges of tomorrow? The beauty of this town is undeniable. Will the environment remain stable and healthy? Will we be able to come together as one town to resolve the issues of today and tomorrow? Can we transcend party and ideology to resolve these issues? Do we have the wisdom and strength to leave a fiscally healthy and environmentally intact town that whispers over 300 years of history to our children? The Democratic Town Committee is composed of a diverse group of residents. Although we hold to different beliefs and ideologies, although our backgrounds are different, we are committed to leave a better town to the High School graduates of 2017. Please come join us in this vast, important undertaking. September 9, 2004 On Monday, September 13 , we will know whether the federal ban on assault weapons has been permitted to expire. This ban, which went into effect ten years ago, outlaws only some of the deadliest weapons. The law has many loopholes, but it has cut the use of military-style semiautomatic weapons in crimes by 66 percent. Law enforcement officers around the country support this ban. Among the organizations that have endorsed it are the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, and the National Fraternal Order of Police. These aren't bleeding-heart liberals we're talking about. In his first presidential campaign, George W. promised to support extension of the ban, saying, "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society." Now, he has--ahem--flip-flopped, refusing to press Congress to extend it. Without his active support, the ban will expire. This is "steady, principled, consistent leadership"? The Bush campaign wants us to believe that the president is best man to lead the fight against terrorism. But terrorists from Colombia to Palestine purchase guns in the United States . Retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (AFT) resident agent-in-charge Daniel McBride said, "The United States has for many years been a warehouse, a shopping center, if you will, for firearms, because of the ease of acquisition . . . throughout the United States. We are a very easy place from which to obtain firearms for transshipment back home." Will putting these assault weapons back on the market help us win the war on terrorism? The politics of the assault weapons ban has particular relevance for Killingworth residents because our congressman, Rob Simmons, is one of those who oppose extension. (By contrast, Rosa DeLauro, who was our representative before the last redistricting, has been a vocal supporter of the ban.) One more reason to vote Simmons out of office in November. August 26, 2004 Politics should not be a dirty word. Partisan should not be an insult. So many of our elected officials have betrayed us that calling someone a politician has become a slur. But it really ought to be an honorific (like calling someone "Lou". Through politics, we rise above our private interests and consider the good of the community we belong to. That's why political parties are more than just dog packs. David Denvir says he doesn't think of himself as a politician. He talks about his office as if he ended up there almost by accident. Instead of seeing political office as something to live up to, he seems to be embarrassed by it. If I understand his August 10th column correctly, he equates "personal ambition" with "political pettiness." But one can aspire to achieve great things: justice, freedom, public prosperity, to name a few ambitions that are not petty. I am not embarrassed to say that the Killingworth Democratic Eye is a partisan column. In it, the Killingworth Democratic Town Committee offers its analysis of matters local and national that significantly affect our community. We bring to bear upon these issues the values for which our party stands, including equal rights and opportunities, fairness, and openness. Of course, we disagree among ourselves on many questions, but we share a belief that government can be a force for positive change. And that view, it seems to me, makes us different from the Republican Party. Of course there are many public-spirited Republicans. But the party holds the position that government is, at best, just another special interest, and, at worst, the enemy. Democrats believe that government is the honorable means by which we do things together. Former Republican Town Committee Chairman John McMahon says that calling for a special election is "a thinly veiled political maneuver." What veil? The whole point of elections is politics. Republican First Selectman David Denvir says that the decision to seek or resign from public office is a personal -- by which he means -- private one. We Democrats beg to differ. Every choice an individual makes is personal, but when you participate in politics, you are accountable to the public. We Democrats don't believe that the Eye fails to serve "something other than the Democratic Party," as Denvir says. Serving the Democratic Party is our way of serving the town and the country. August 12, 2004 What if we held a primary and nobody came? Not so far fetched when you consider that only 18.5 percent of registered Democrats came to the polls for the August 10 th primary in our congressional district. Jim Sullivan won 67 percent of those votes, so he is now the Democratic candidate for the second congressional district seat in November. He is running against Rob Simmons, the Republican incumbent, and he has our congratulations and support. But there is another winner whenever the voter turnout is low. It's the eight hundred pound gorilla that is always sitting just outside the political arena, right in the heart of Washington . It takes the shape of more than twenty thousand lobbyists who, day in and day out, seek to influence the minds and allegiances of our elected officials. The only day they fear is Election Day, when we have the power to chose, to let those who seek our vote know that we are paying attention. Low turnout tells the lobbyists that they don't have too much to worry about. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is one that warps our entire national agenda. Those twenty thousand-plus lobbyists are well paid, have health insurance, good pensions, and are elected by absolutely nobody. They are hardly known outside "the beltway" yet are the real "special interests". Maybe we should view Election Days as the one occasion when the voters' lobby gets to be heard. Jim Sullivan will be facing an uphill fight against the incumbent in November. Incumbency, in the light of voter apathy, is a powerful position. All those lobbyists express themselves loud and clear by making large contributions to the campaign war chests of incumbents. That money allows them to drown out the voices of challengers. Strengthening the Democratic contingent in the House of Representatives will be crucial this November. This is a critical time for planning the future of health insurance, education, responsible budgets, the environment, and renewable energy resources. Many of us feel that we are not headed in the right direction on any of these issues under the present administration. Electing Jim Sullivan along with Kerry and Edwards, and that means getting out the Democratic vote in what should be a Democratic congressional district, will set the stage for a more promising agenda. But hope can only be on the way if we, the voter lobbyists, stay informed and VOTE. July 27, 2004 Another pair of Democratic eyes have just recently seen Fahrenheit 9/11. I was not part of the initial rush, because I thought the movie would be too in-your-face and over the top. I found it to be neither. Yes, I am the converted to whom it's preaching, but you know the old saying: "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is following me." I hope that independent voters and moderate Republicans will take the time to see what it's all about. You know going in that Michael Moore opposes Bush. Finding out why makes for a thoughtful, sometimes heart-wrenching two hours. Doubters can always check out the facts. Are there some cheap shots? Of course. Paul Wolfowitz spitting on his comb comes to mind. But mostly you see people speaking for themselves. Young men in Flint , Michigan find a similarity in bombed-out parts of Iraq and burned-out and boarded-up sections of Flint . A mother agonizes over a son lost in the war. Soldiers speak eloquently about the experience of combat. One soldier's quiet statement says volumes about war's aftermath: "I feel a part of your soul is destroyed in taking another life." War is hell, and the unintended consequences are horrific. That is why war should be undertaken only when the necessity is clear and urgent. Events indicate that we do need to be reminded of that. Trying to be fair and balanced, I should mention that Rumsfeld is shown telling us of "the humanity that goes into" the technology of and planning for precision bombing. From the fraudulent election results in Florida , the Bushes' relationship with the Saudi royal family, Cheney and Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, the Taliban in Texas , (Yes the Taliban in Texas. It has to do with a gas pipeline.) and the inadequate attention to the war in Afghanistan , to a prophetic and damning quote from George Orwell, this documentary connects some scary dots. True, they've been connected before, usually one issue at a time. But the cumulative effect here is very disturbing. Yet it is often the words of the main characters that paint the picture most clearly. Rumsfeld actually says we can almost say of the coalition that it is "the mother of all coalitions." Trust me, I could not make that up! Bush explains to the Board of Directors at Harken, while his father was president, "Access is power. I can talk with my father whenever I want to." Bush, speaking to an audience of the rich and powerful, tells them that while some people call them the elite, he calls them his base. Moore is asking us to believe this administration when they tell us who they are. And they do tell us! July 15 2004 If you have a teenager, you have hear apologies that mean, Give me a break, Get off my back, Don't be so sensitive -- anything but contrition. When are our political leaders going to grow up? Donald Rumsfeld "accepts full responsibility" for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. He also says that those who are responsible will be tried and punished. He is not referring to himself. John Rowland acknowledges that he lied, that he did not live up to his own standards. He asks us to forgive him. Then he holds on to his governorship for a half a year, arguing that he is still fit for the office. For every month he hangs on, his annual pension goes up by hundreds of dollars. David Denvir says of the Freedom of Information Commission, "We had a fair hearing. Wiser heads than mine have looked at it and they've said the Board was wrong. I have to accept this." Then he says, "But I still completely disagree." And he will go ahead and spend the town's money to continue the argument. We hear a lot of rolled r's, and eyes, in the First Selectman's recent column. Mr. Denvir says he is "Sorry the incident occurred." (Translation for those without teenagers: I didn't do it! ) "Sorry a Selectman felt excluded." (What's his problem?) "Sorry the good name of Killingworth government got dragged into court." (I didn't do it!) . . . "Sorry, in fact, that I ever agreed -- at the urging of the Selectmen, many residents and other elected officials" to broker a meeting of the School Building Committee and our Town Building Official. (They made me do it.) We need a leader who has the maturity of judgment to see the difference between "brokering a meeting" and taking a phone call. To put the long-term interests of the town ahead of short-term expediency. To see vigorous debate as a strength, not a threat. To make amends, not excuses. "Taking responsibility" with any actual consequences is the political equivalent of profiting from stolen goods. You acknowledge a mistake or misdeed. Then you take advantage of the benefits that action gives you. The victims bear the cost. June 30 2004 Eleven score and eight years ago, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence. (Never mind that our particular great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were nowhere near the colonies; "our forefathers" are ours by citizenship. That's one of the things that make America special.) In it, they set forth the fundamental creed that unites our nation -- most famously, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then they had to fight for that creed for another five years. Indeed, the fight has never stopped, and it is always on two fronts. We have to defend the nation founded on that creed against its enemies, while every new threat to the nation tempts us to compromise that creed. After 9/11, no one could ignore the severity of the threat from terrorist organizations around the world. The president and Congress responded immediately by passing the USA Patriot Act. But in seeking to defend the nation, they undermined the Constitution and the very ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Now, without probable cause to suspect you of a crime, the government can obtain evidence against you from your financial institution, your library, your school, and your doctor, and it can use that information in a criminal case against you that has nothing to do with the security of the country. Conservatives as well as liberals are deeply troubled by the Patriot Act, and it is quite unclear -- in part because of the act's many secrecy provisions -- whether the act has been helpful in preventing or prosecuting terrorist activities. But far from reconsidering in calmer moments, last December President Bush signed into law another statute expanding the term "financial institution" to include travel agencies, car dealers, hotels, casinos, real estate and insurance agents, lawyers, pawnbrokers, news stands, and even the Post Office. For the first time in American history, the government can read your mail before you do, without a search warrant, and it can prosecute you on the basis of what it reads. The Bush administration wants to extend the sections of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of 1995. If Congress goes along with the president, we will be destroying the nation in order to save it. We should not extend the Act. We should repeal it. That would be the most patriotic thing we could do. June 17 2004 The recent death of former President Ronald Reagan reminded me of one of his famous turns of phrase: Trust, but verify. The controversy over the RSD 17 site selection process may not be a nuclear arms race, but the concept is relevant. The community needs to trust the processes by which decisions have been reached, and it needs to verify the findings that led to those decisions. I am a member of the Building Committee as well as a RSD 17 parent and a Killingworth resident, and I'd like to provide some background that will help do both. On February 10, 2003 , the voters of RSD 17 approved the "planning, design, acquisition and construction of a new intermediate/middle school," by a vote of 2,152 to 1,757. Since then, however, many questions have been raised about the site identified by the RSD 17 Building Committee. Basically, all those questions boil down to two: How and why was the site selected? And will the selected site support the project as envisioned, and as it has evolved? In March 2001 , the voters of RSD 17 rejected the first school building plan, largely because a building site had not yet been determined. The Building Committee then undertook a year-long evaluation of possible sites for a new school along Route 81. Of the available land, six properties were selected for critical review. The Building Committee conducted the evaluations using guidelines similar to those followed in other Connecticut projects. We ranked the sites with respect to economic, physical/functional, and environmental criteria. Economic criteria included the estimated cost of the property, the amount of time it would take to acquire the property, and the estimated cost to construct on the property. Physical/functional criteria included feasibility of construction on the property, accessibility to the various parts of the district, and topographical conditions. Environmental criteria included the impact on the surrounding physical environment; the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and conditions of the site (For example, was the site contaminated from previous use?). In applying these criteria, the Building Committee solicited the expert advice of certified soil scientists, excavators, civil engineers, and financial consultants. Discussions were careful, thorough, and methodical. As everyone is now well aware, the site that ranked highest among the six considered was the Secondino/Pavelka property. Will the new school fit on the Secondino/Pavelka site? Five acres of buildable land are needed for every hundred students. Enrollment is projected to be fewer than 850 on opening day in the fall of 2006, and the property contains more than 45 buildable acres. In addition, the land will accommodate five playing fields (three for soccer, one for baseball, and one for softball). So the answer is yes. The minor changes and modifications that have been made to the original building design will not in any way alter its ability to fit the selected site. A number of avenues are available to address future growth in enrollment; we have time to explore them as the trends become clear. The new school project has now been approved by more than 25 officials and state and local agencies. The final hurdle is the Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission, which meets in public session on July 6 th . If things go well, the project should go out for bid by the summer, and ground will be broken in the fall. If things don't go well and the project is delayed, the cost of building materials will continue to rise, and we will get less for our money. This is the last train leaving the station, and I believe the majority of community residents remain on board. The train departs on July 6 th at KES; please attend the meeting and voice your support. June 3, 2004 Some readers have told us that this column should deal only with Killingworth issues. Well, it does. Killingworth may be "in the middle of nowhere," as my teenage daughters like to say. But we are part of the State of Connecticut and the United States of America . Everything that has been discussed in this column is a Killingworth issue. Take income taxes. Of course, towns don't levy income taxes. So why are income taxes a Killingworth issue? Not just because we Killingworthies pay them like everyone else. President Bush is campaigning as a tax cutter. But do the citizens of Killingworth benefit from his tax policies? Under Bush administration policies, only the super-wealthy come out ahead. That's because they get a disproportionate share of the tax breaks. Studies show that most of the benefits go to those with incomes over $200,000 per year. In the last census, that was less than 3 percent of households in Killingworth. Meanwhile, cutbacks in federal and state support mean higher fees for everything from dog licenses to college tuition, higher property taxes to make up for reduced public school funding, and higher interest rates due to the enormous national debt. These "local" costs more than eat up the tax reductions for almost 80 percent of the population. When federal regulations are eased to permit power plants in Ohio to emit more pollutants, we breathe the dirty air here in Killingworth. When Congress passes the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers at KES have to change the way they teach (and we have to provide the funds). Under the Patriot Act, the books we borrow from the Killingworth Library can be reported to the FBI. Corrupt government at any level undermines civic trust. It's a good sign that people are paying attention to local politics and want more coverage than even the indefatigable Shannon OCork--bless her heart--can provide. But it would be a foolish economy of words to ignore policies and practices at the state and national levels that have a powerful impact on the well-being of our town. And the last presidential election reminds us of the converse proposition: very local decisions can change the course of the nation. May 20, 2004 We take pride in being a nation of laws, not men. That means good men--and women--as well as bad. At the May 17th town meeting, we had an extended discussion of an ordinance regarding "Alcohol Possession by Minors in the Town of Killingworth." No one disputed that unsupervised teen-age drinking is an appalling problem. No one doubted the good intentions of the people pushing for the ordinance; John McMahon expressed very well the respect due to Catherine LeVasseur, who, he said, has "seen a problem and tried to do something about it." And more than a few minds were swayed by the clear integrity, dedication, and civic mindedness of our resident state Trooper, Officer Michael Perry. The ordinance passed by the narrowest of margins. At the May 18th public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission, a long-standing debate continued over the property on which the new middle school is to be built. By now, there is general agreement that a new school is needed. The real questions are whether the site is environmentally suited to the construction of a school meant eventually to serve 1,200 students, and whether the current plans for the school are economically responsible. Confusing the issue, however, are various private interests of a few men and women. We should not be basing important public decisions on our feelings--either positive or negative--about individuals. Of course, everyone has a right to be heard, even to argue in his or her own interest. And we certainly hope that people will vigorously advocate their own views of the public interest. But it is our job as citizens to judge these arguments not simply on the basis of anecdotes and personal regard (or personal antagonism), but in light of our long-range view of the needs of the community, our principles, and our values. This task is not easy. Values often conflict: we want protection of our constitutional rights and we want protection of our loved ones and our property. Costs and benefits are often difficult to determine: will revising the school building plans cost the district more than proceeding with them? One of the most important purposes of our educational system--the subject of so much controversy--is to teach our children to think critically about such questions, to distinguish solid arguments from misleading ones, and to generalize from particulars. Another issue at last Tuesday evening's Planning and Zoning hearing was changes in the regulations regarding buildable lots. The PandZ Commission proposed tightening requirements to protect vernal pools, wetlands, and the water supply. Much of the discussion referred inaccurately to the Pand Z proposal, which involved the formulas by which our soil-based zoning is applied, and the charge was also made that this proposal was specifically aimed at large property owners. Now, almost everyone in Killingworth agrees that preserving our rural environment is of the utmost importance. As development pressure increases, we have to take action to preserve that environment. We should all consider the PandZ proposal with this public purpose in mind, and we should not be deterred by threats of legal challenges if the proposed regulations are a legitimate means to a valid end. We may not always have such well-meaning police officers or government officials. We will surely never find a perfect site for a school that inconveniences no one. We will never find a moment when we can change our laws without affecting the expectations of current landowners. Living in a small town should be a blessing. If we can't see beyond our neighbor's fence, it is a curse. May 13, 2004 Last Monday evening, volunteer firemen were at the firehouse training to be certified for their critically important work. Volunteer coaches and scorekeepers were officiating at ball games at Rocco and Sheldon fields for almost fifty children. Parent volunteers at a KES PTO meeting at the school were brainstorming to find ways to improve our children's educational experiences. At Town Hall, Lions Club volunteers were advancing a winter recreation project with the volunteer members of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Most of these volunteers have day jobs. Many have children or parents to care for. Yet somehow they find the time to do the heavy lifting that improves the quality of life for all of us. They make me proud to be a part of Killingworth. Other men and women in our town give hours of their time in another way. Like the volunteers, they attend meetings and hearings, write letters to the editor, and lobby politicians. They act as the "eyes and ears" of the community--a valuable function. The problem is that, without the discipline of having to work out solutions themselves, these gadflies too often end up diminishing the efforts of the volunteer coaches, umpires, planners, and town officials who struggle to balance costs and benefits and to reach political compromises. Rather that contributing to the well-being of the town, the critics obstruct progress, demoralize the real volunteers, and undermine the community. I'm not even talking about those who use the open, democratic processes of our town for personal gain. This is unethical and offensive behavior. We should be able to distinguish private interests from public ones and resist profiteering at the expense of the taxpayers. Others, however, believe they are acting in the public interest but do more harm than good. We need to convince them to channel their energy into more constructive participation. This is not to say that volunteers are never wrong or that public issues shouldn't be freely debated. But as our mothers told us, it's easy to criticize. And incessant criticism divides our town in an unhealthy way. At last Monday's Park and Recreation Commission meeting, I had the unique pleasure of introducing Bruce Dodson to Bill Silas and Dan Colonia. Bill and Dan are two of the most dedicated volunteers in Killingworth's youth sports leagues, Bill in baseball and Dan in soccer. Both give immeasurable time and energy to these important programs. Bruce has been an indefatigable force behind every Lions Club, Land Trust, nature-related, and "good of the town" activity, seemingly forever. All of these men think hard about Killingworth's future, and none of them is foolish enough to simply accept official recommendations without serious consideration. But Bruce and Bill and Dan all take responsibility that goes beyond carping and blaming. I don't know how it happened that these three citizens had not crossed paths before, but I felt as if two great generals were meeting a legendary commander-in-chief for the very first time. Made my evening. May 6, 2004 You can learn a lot at the library, and not just about Patagonia or portulaca. You can find out what the government thinks you should know, and what it thinks it should know about you. Under the Patriot Act, passed hurriedly after the September 11 attacks, the FBI can require libraries to turn over records on an individual's use of the facility, from borrowing books to surfing the Internet. The government does not have to show that it has "probable cause"--or any cause at all--to suspect the person it is investigating. It has only to claim that the information it seeks may be related to an ongoing investigation. There is no way for an individual to challenge such a warrant. In fact, the librarian is not allowed to tell the individual that the warrant has been served. Librarians are not even permitted to reveal whether or not they have received, or responded to, any requests at all. Most states have laws protecting the privacy of library patrons. Connecticut law, for example, says that "personally identifiable information contained in the circulation records of all public libraries shall be confidential." The Patriot Act supersedes all such laws. The American Library Association calls this section of the Patriot Act "a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users." (Let's hope that doesn't land the librarians on John Ashcroft's list of terrorist organizations, along with the National Education Association.) The section is set to expire in 2005, but President Bush has already called on Congress to make the entire act permanent, saying that its sweeping law enforcement powers are necessary to fight terror. Since the government's use of these provisions of the Patriot Act is secret, it is impossible to know how important they have been. So the government wants to be able to find out a lot about you. But it doesn't want you to find out a lot about itself. Not the papers of past presidents. Not the names of the people advising Vice-President Cheney on energy policy. Not what happened on 9/11: President Bush fought the formation of a commission, fought the public release of documents by the commission, and refused to testify under oath before the commission. Now, the Bush administration is messing around with the guardianship of the basic records of our democracy. It is trying to install its own head of the National Archives without following either the law or customary procedures. You wouldn't think that the position of National Archivist would be a politically sensitive one. And, indeed, the law states, "The Archivist shall be appointed without regard to political affiliations, and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of Archivist." Nevertheless, in April, the administration pushed the National Archivist to resign a year and a half before the end of his term. The president did not " communicate the reasons for such removal to each House of Congress," as the law stipulates. The White House then nominated Allen Weinstein for the post, without consulting "recognized organizations of archivists and historians" in the selection, as specified in the legislative history of the act creating the National Archives and Records Administration. And apparently, the administration is seeking to avoid confirmation hearings on Weinstein by attaching a confirmation bill to some other piece of legislation. Weinstein, in fact, has an extremely controversial past. As historian Jon Wiener said on National Public Radio, "Allen Weinstein is a historian of espionage who's closely connected with Republicans in Congress. He founded an organization called The Center for Democracy. Henry Kissinger is on the board. His own record of releasing documents that he's worked with in his research on Soviet espionage is, frankly, a poor one. He has concealed his own research materials, which violates the ethics of the Society of American Archivists and refused to make interview tapes available at an archive, which is what's required by the American Historical Association. So there's concern that a man who has a poor record on access to documents should not be in charge of access to documents for the whole country." Those documents will soon include the papers of the 9/11 commission and the first Bush administration. The American Library Association has called on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (on which Joe Lieberman is the ranking Democrat) to schedule open hearings on the Weinstein nomination, in the interest of "protecting the professional integrity and political non-partisanship" of the National Archives. When the librarians raise their voices, you need to start worrying. April 29, 2004 As John Edwards said, the fundamental issue in this election is whether we want to be one America, or two. Do we want one America for those in positions of privilege, and a separate one for everybody else? Through its actions, the Bush administration has made clear its answer. We have two tax systems: as Edwards put it, "one for those who have lawyers and accountants and can take care of every tax loophole and every tax advantage that comes down the pike; then one for everybody else, folks who just work hard every single day and pay their taxes." We have two health care systems: "one for those who can afford the best health care money can buy; one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies and HMOs." Under Bush, we even have two governments: one for those who have special access to the White House--who have often purchased special access to the White House--and one for everybody else. Energy industry executives can help draft regulations that will benefit their own interests. Everybody else can write letters to the editor after the regulations are published. And the kicker is, this administration is doing everything it can to makes sure those two Americas stay separate and unequal. Take President Bush's current attempt to limit overtime pay. Of course, the privileged Americans who get the big tax cuts and the meetings with the vice president don't depend on overtime pay for their large salaries. And they would rather not have to pay overtime if they can help it. So the president proposed a revision to labor rules that would remove many categories of workers from the 40-hour workweek protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. When workers are stripped of their overtime rights, their employers can force them to work overtime for no extra pay. This isn't just a matter of protecting a token benefit for a small "special interest" group. Overtime pay makes up one-fourth of the weekly earnings of workers who earn overtime. Furthermore, by taking away workers' overtime rights, President Bush would encourage businesses to overwork their existing staff (for no extra pay) rather than hire new workers. He would actually take away an incentive to create new jobs. Here's the most ironic aspect of this effort by our "wartime" president: the rule changes initially proposed a year ago explicitly targeted veterans. Currently, workers can be denied overtime protection if they are "professional employees," but generally only workers with specialized degrees can be classified as "professional." When the administration initially proposed new regulations, it would have allowed equivalent "training in the armed forces" to be substituted for a specialized degree. So veterans who received specialized training during their military service and later found jobs using those skills would lose their overtime pay. Under intense pressure from Democrats in Congress, the White House recently revised its proposal and now exempts veterans from the exclusion. But the president is still pushing a rule that his own Department of Labor says would take away protection from over a million people. Rob Simmons, our current congressman, supports the president on this, as he does on so many other issues. Most recently, he voted no on a motion prohibiting funds from being used to promulgate or implement any regulation that would take away eligibility for overtime for any worker. Both of the men seeking the Democratic nomination for Second Congressional District seat have criticized Simmons's position on the labor regulations. "Rob Simmons likes to claim the mantle of moderation, but rolling back labor laws that have been in place for seventy years is not moderate," says Jim Sullivan. "It is radical and it is wrong. If George Bush and Rob Simmons cared half as much about workers as they do about the wealthy, this country would be in better shape. But they don't care and these overtime regulations prove it." Shaun McNally says, "These new rules will eliminate overtime pay for potentially millions of workers, at a time when people are already working harder and getting less. This is an unacceptable step backward for Connecticut families." That's only one reason we need to elect a Democrat to Congress this fall. Simmons has been a crucial piece of the narrow Republican majority in Congress. In a closely divided Congress, every vote counts, and as the Norwich Bulletin said recently, "when push comes to shove, the GOP leadership expects that vote from him." That's a vote for two Americas, separate and unequal. We need a congressman whom we can expect to vote for one America. For all of us. April 22, 2004 The Boston Globe recently named Mario M. Cuomo "the nation's most gifted philosopher-politician. At his SCSU lecture on" April 21 st , it was apparent why. Governor Cuomo is a 71-year-old lawyer, statesman, Roman Catholic, author, public servant, parent of five, grandparent of eleven, and husband of fifty years. He served twelve years as governor of New York , twice setting records for the highest popular vote ever attained in a New York State election. While in office, Governor Cuomo balanced twelve budgets while reducing income taxes and investing $50 billion in infrastructure. He added the nation's first African-American, Hispanic, and female judges to state courts. He also introduced the nation's first seat belt law, an aggressive anti-drunk driving program, Centers of Advanced Technology, Child Health Plus, the Children's Assistance Program, and significant ethics law for public officials. He has written almost half a dozen books, ranging from The Blue Spruce, a children's book, to the forthcoming Why Lincoln Matters. One biography notes that he has declined both nomination to the Supreme Court and candidacy for president. And a recent article suggested that anti-Bush Republicans have promoted Cuomo as vice-presidential candidate on Kerry's ticket, as Cheney's antithesis. The respect Cuomo demands among Democrats is legendary, and there has been at least one organization called "Republicans for Cuomo." Governor Cuomo would not find these bedfellows strange. He believes "that reliance upon shorthand labels like 'right-wing conservative' or 'left-wing liberal'" is inaccurate at best. "Complex positions on complicated subjects" are distorted in 26-second sound bites and in these classifications. At SCSU, Mr. Cuomo reflected on the state of our union. He argued strenuously against the $3 trillion Bush tax cut, $1 trillion of which benefits about 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans -- "people like me and my corporate clients," he said. "We didn't ask for this money and we don't need it." The money could have been used far more wisely: to assist the 35 million American poor--including 11 million children; the 8 million lost jobs; the 300 thousand people who have simply given up looking for work; the 44 million people lacking health insurance; the crumbling and unproductive schools; the unmet technical, training, and staffing needs for police and firemen nationwide; the need for rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. The current president took a historically unparalleled budget surplus and created an unparalleled deficit, and this is not simply the result of the war on terrorism. "If you want to stimulate the economy," said Governor Cuomo, "give the money to the workers who will spend it right away, not corporations, who are investors, not spenders." The government should be investing in children and working people, in their education, in their technical training, in their health care, he declared. Mr. Cuomo questioned the president's intentions in Iraq . When we launched the war there, our nation was caught up in fear, our economy was in trouble, the deficit was growing, gas prices were rising, millions of Americans had lost their jobs, three quarters of a million were without unemployment benefits, Afghanistan was losing steam, Osama bin Laden was still at large. If we were truly concerned with the threat of terrorism, why not look at Saudi Arabia , the point of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists? If we were concerned with the injustice and oppression in Iraq , why didn't we get involved in Africa ? Iraq was an ideal political distraction for the American people. The timing was ripe for the administration's preconceived plan for Iraq to materialize. What "theater of war" and personal agenda will be next, Mr. President? My brief recollection of Mario Cuomo's comments does not do him justice. If you read his books and articles yourself, you will find his arguments and ideas compelling regardless of your political label. April 15, 2004 Thanks to Bruce Campbell for his Poetry Month ode to the value of multiple opinions in the political arena. Too often in our society, disagreement is called disloyalty and genuine debate is considered undignified. Taken to its extreme, this attitude vilifies as traitors those who question the government's policies--as President Bush did most recently in his April 14 press conference. The Killingworth Democrats honor the ideal of diversity visually in our new logo for this column. (Thanks to Jim Yacavone, who designed it for us.) As faithful readers will have noticed, from week to week the Democratic Eye presents a variety of perspectives. Democrats share a commitment to government that protects and serves all the people, and a belief that we can and should use government to make our world better. Beyond that, the party is famously diverse in its views. Remember the Will Rogers quip,"I belong to no organized party. I'm a Democrat." We in Killingworth are incredibly lucky. Democracy thrives here--in both parties, and outside them, too. Our remarkable citizens not only serve, often unpaid, on countless committees and boards; they also study the issues, attend public meetings, write letters to the editor. If the discussions get raucous and sometimes seem to go on forever, it's because the participants take the governance of our town seriously. (The only thing Killingworth really lacks is an easy way to refer to its citizens. Killingworthers just doesn't work. Suggestions, anyone?) Killingworth is small enough that it's easy to see how political decisions affect real people (and that doesn't mean just a few contractors). Thus, as we debate an ordinance on underage drinking, we talk about specific instances of unsupervised parties and offensive behavior. What makes Killingworth special is that we will consider both the concrete evidence and the larger picture, including social policy and protection of fundamental rights, as we struggle to reach a good resolution. Everyone involved in the debate is speaking out of an interest in the public good, not an attempt to achieve political advantage or personal gain. Journalists often rank towns on the basis of amenities, resources, cost of living. What makes Killingworth unique can't be measured. It is the fact that in this day and age and place, we are to a large extent a participatory democracy, and almost all of the participants are honorable, honest, and public-spirited. April 8, 2004 The politicians are spinning so fast, they can't hear themselves think. The president changed his mind and agreed to speak to the September 11 Commission, but only under several conditions. One of those conditions was that he and the vice-president appear together, in private, and not under oath. Is he listening to himself? His lawyers may be able to spin that position into a matter of constitutional principle, but the rest of us hear what he's really saying: He is willing to lie to the American people, and he wants Cheney there with him so they can keep their story straight. The governor declines to step down, saying, "What I do ask for is the chance to allow a fair and full federal investigation to progress and reach a conclusion." Is he listening to himself? His lawyers want to spin that position into an admirable respect for due process of the law, but the rest of us wonder why he needs investigators to tell him whether or not he's done anything wrong. Our U.S. Congressman said he didn't think that outing the wife of retired ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA agent violated the law. "The law," Simmons said, "criminalizes identifying covert agents as a pattern of activities. The intent is to criminalize a behavior" and the routine functioning of the media would not be covered. Is he listening to himself? His legal interpretation (which itself seems to confuse two sections of the law) is an attempt to spin the issue away from the administration sources who may have leaked the information, but they, not just columnist Robert Novak, are the ones who should be held accountable. Doesn't Simmons--a former CIA agent himself--think there's a problem here beyond the legalities? The first selectman says we shouldn't worry about the title insurance for the new school site, which is the subject of various boundary issues. He assured us in a public meeting that since a commitment letter is legally binding, it is as good as an actual policy. He's a lawyer, he said, so he knows. Is he listening to himself? Denvir's spin convinced the audience that everything was in order. But it turns out that the commitment is for only a token amount money, and that the policy should have been in hand quite a while ago. Denvir was trying to close off discussion, not open it. The voters shouldn't have to read minds to get the true story. April 1, 2004 In March, the Killingworth and Haddam Selectmen and Boards of Finance had their annual meeting with the Region 17 Board of Education. This meeting is supposed to be an open discussion of the preliminary school budget draft, before the final budget is presented to the towns for referendum each spring. I have attended almost every one of these meetings for the last ten years. They are always political, of course, since every participant is an elected official. But political suggests leadership, and leadership is little in evidence at these meetings. At the recent meeting on March 16th, several members of the Board of Education said, in plain English, that the budget put forward is inadequate, that it is a maintenance document. It includes no new programs to actually educate kids. But all the participants were wary of proposing anything more, for fear of the referendum not passing. Of course it is important to consider what the voters want. But voters are never unanimous. If all we wanted was a tally of voter views, we would not have a representative government in the first place; we would just have pollsters. We need our elected officials to carefully consider the issues, reach reasoned conclusions, explain their reasoning clearly and openly, and vote their convictions. If a matter is going to a public referendum, we need our local representatives to argue their positions forcefully and show us the full significance of our choices. In other words, we need them not to follow but to lead. Too often, the fact that something costs money seems to be a conversation stopper. Everything costs money! The questions we should be discussing are: What is it worth spending money on? How can we get the most value for our money? What are our priorities? Is the aim of our school system really just to produce more "Burger Chef" employees? Do we think that's an adequate goal? Most of the officials involved in the meeting assume that RSD 17 voters will pass the school budget only if it remains below an increase of 7 percent; that somehow, if kept below this magic number, it is affordable and therefore acceptable, regardless of what it contains. The meeting was a missed opportunity for key officials who do not always communicate regularly with one another to discuss thoroughly the programmatic aspects of the budget and the educational needs of our children. It is the responsibility of the Board of Education to make the case for improving the quality of our schools and to fight to convince the people of Haddam and Killingworth that expenses are justified. It is the responsibility of the selectmen and the Boards of Finance to consider and evaluate the Board of Education's positions on behalf of the citizens. And it is the responsibility of all these elected officials to collectively lead our communities to a consensus of what is in our best interests, whether or not we residents want to hear the truth. We need to have a substantive discussion in our regional school district of what our objectives should be, especially given recent data indicating that compared with the other 169 Connecticut towns, Region 17 has gone from a rank of 25 to 76 in terms of its per pupil expenditure. Are the recent declines in Region 17 math and verbal SAT scores related to per pupil spending? This is the kind of information that the budget proposal should take into account. A budget increase (or decrease) should not be held hostage to fears about what may or may not be acceptable or popular. As a great leader once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." We need representatives who are willing to take political risks. Whether the news is welcome or not, our officials must openly share the truth, and then stand up for it as they see it. They must do their best to lead all of us horses to water, whether or not we end up drinking it. |
Return to top